ACCT 3011 Financial Accounting B, Semester 2, 2009

Group Research Assignment Handout

1. Learning Goals

This assignment will help you achieve Learning Goals 1-5 and the acquire the ‘Research
& Inquiry’ and ‘Communication’ graduate attributes described in the ACCT 3011 Unit of
Study (UOS) Outline.

As noted in the UOS Outline, this assignment will make up 20% of your aggregate
assessment if you are taking ACCT 3011 as a 6 credit-point unit; 15% if you have gained
approval to attach a two credit-point extension unit to the 6 credit-point version of this
unit.

2. Assignment Questions and Due Dates

DUE DATE FOR ASSIGNMENT: 12 midday on Tuesday 15 September

2009
The IASB and FASB’s joint project on the conceptual framework will likely influence
the development of accounting standards in the future. As you know, the conceptual
framework articulates the objectives of financial reporting (as well as definitions of
the elements of financial statements and the desired qualitative characteristics of
financial statements). However, to date, progress on measurement in accounting has
been limited. As you are probably aware, measurement issues are being strongly
contested at the moment within the context of the ‘fair value’ debate. This point is
investigated by Geoffrey Whittington in his article Fair Value and the IASB/FASB
Conceptual Framework Project: An Alternative View in Abacus, Volume 44,
Issue 2, Date: June 2008, Pages: 139-168.

Referring to Whittington (2008), the articles cited below and other relevant
publications, respond to the following question:

Are the objectives of financial reporting sufficiently clear to assist

this fair value debate? Explain your position.

Note:

In 2003 Abacus (Vol.39 Issue 3 p.273-414) published a special edition on the

(Australian) Accounting Conceptual Framework. When Australia adopted the IASB’s
standards in 2005, in effect the IASB’s version of a conceptual framework was also
adopted. The IASB framework is broadly similar to the pre-2005 Australian version
but you will have to make a judgment about whether the issues raised in the Abacus
special edition apply to the IASB framework. (Hint: mostly they do!). The specific
articles in the Abacus special edition are:

1
ABACUS Volume 39 Issue 3 , Pages 273 - 414 (October 2003)

Guest Editorial
A Patch on GAAP (p i-vi)
Robert R. Sterling
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00131.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 64K)

Save Article

Original Articles
Forum: The Accounting Conceptual Framework Introduction (p 273-278)
Murray Wells
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00132.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 75K)

Save Article

An Evolving Conceptual Framework? (p 279-297)

Graeme W. Dean, Frank L. Clarke
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00133.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 185K)

Save Article

The CF and Accounting Standards: The Persistence of Discrepancies (p 298-309)

Janice A. Loftus
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00134.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 118K)

Save Article

The Conceptual Framework as a Coherent System for the Development of Accounting Standards (p
310-324)
Brian Booth
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00135.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 115K)

Save Article

Reporting Performance: Comprehensive Income and its Components (p 325-339)

Susan Newberry
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00136.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 107K)

Save Article

Objectives of Financial Reporting (p 340-355)

R. G. Walker
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00137.x

2
Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 148K)
Save Article

Measurement: A Way Forward (p 356-374)

R. G. Walker, Stewart Jones
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00138.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 177K)

Save Article

Harmonization and the Conceptual Framework: An International Perspective (p 375-387)

Stewart Jones, Peter W. Wolnizer
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00139.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 122K)

Save Article

Implications for the Conceptual Framework Arising From Accounting for Financial Instruments (p 388-
397)
Michael E. Bradbury
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00140.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 84K)

Save Article

A Statement of Accounting Concepts for Level 1 of the Conceptual Framework? (p 398-414)

John Staunton
Published Online: Dec 17 2003 12:00AM
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00141.x

Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 398K)

Save Article

You can also refer to other references such as the ones listed below if you wish. Many of
the journals are available in libraries at the University of Sydney. Some examples of
academic journals include:

Abacus
Accountancy
Accounting and Business Research
Accounting and Finance
Accounting Education
Accounting Historians Journal
Accounting Horizons
Accounting Forum
Accounting Research Journal
Australian Accounting Review
British Accounting Review
Contemporary Accounting Research
European Accounting Review

3
Financial Accountability & Management
International Journal of Accounting
Journal of Accountancy
Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting
Research in Accounting Regulation
The Accounting Review

You may also refer to Professional Journals, that include:

Charter (Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia)

In the Black (CPA Australia)
Financial Management (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, U.K.)

Presentation

(i) Length of assignment: 3000 words

Excessive length will be penalized. Please note that individual footnotes should not
exceed 30 words, and the total number of footnotes should not exceed 8.
The word count will exclude any headings, sub-headings, table of contents, figures,
tables, references and appendices, but the report overall must be appropriate and
balanced. Do not use the exclusions from the word count to overcome the
constraints of the word limit. In particular, appendices should not be used to make
points not included in the main body of the assignment.
The word limit will be taken seriously by markers, so your group’s expression must
be succinct and crisp. Length up to 3100 words– that is, prescribed length plus 10%
– will not be penalized, but anything more will result in loss of marks.

(ii) Presentation/Formatting/Typescript: The assignment must be word-

processed/typed. It must be double-spaced, with margins of at least 2.5 cms, top
and bottom, left and right. The font size is 12.

(iii) Group Allocation:

You must complete the assignment as a member of a group of three (to four) ACCT
3011 students. Group members MUST come from the SAME tutorial class.
Penalties may apply for failure to meet this requirement.

(iv) Working in Groups:

Groups should not make unreasonable demands on individual members, for
example, by scheduling meetings at times or places that make attendance
impossible. (A group chat room, or email communication may avoid or mitigate
such problems.)
Many excellent suggestions about group work are available at
http://learning.econ.usyd.edu.au/groupwork/index.html. Note, however, that if there
is any discrepancy between such suggestions and the formal requirements of this
assignment, the formal requirements will prevail and must be followed.

4
 “Exception Reporting” of how your group is functioning: If you consider that your
group is not functioning well and that you are concerned that any member of your
group has not made a fair and equal contribution, you and your group members can
request a meeting with a member of staff to discuss and document this fact. In other
words, the reporting of the performance of the group to a staff member is on an
exception basis only when one group member feels aggrieved that the group work
is not being shared fairly and equally among group members. All group members
must be present when this is discussed with a member of staff. However, the onus is
on you to provide evidence to support your case. It is recommended that all groups
keep records of their activities, including group meetings. Under the circumstances
it may be in everybody’s interests to have regular formal meetings where minutes
(records of proceedings at the meeting) are kept and duly signed as accurate by all
members present. For example, the number of times the group meets and how the
group decides to allocate tasks will be relevant in the event of reporting to a staff
member that your group is not functioning well. As a result of the meeting that any
such group holds with staff, it may be agreed that particular group members should
be awarded less that 100% of the assignment’s raw mark.

If you are affected by illness or other adverse circumstances you should apply for
special consideration.

Submission of Assignment and Submission Checklist:

Assignments must be submitted both in hard copy and electronically by 12 midday

on Tuesday 15 September 2009. An assignment box will be allocated for this
purpose on level 1 of the Economics and Business Building (H69).
Penalties for late submission are 10% per day as stated in the UOS Outline.
Weekend days and public holidays are included in the penalty calculation.
Hard copy submission:
You are required to submit the following hard copy paper documents to the
ACCT3011 Assignment Locker on level 1 of building H69 before the deadline:
1. Group assessment cover sheet (see checklist or project folder on Blackboard for
website link)
2. Blank Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet - see p.10 below (i.e., print
off and attach this document ready for the markers to complete for you)
3. Group assignment
4. Completed submission checklist – see p.11 below (i.e., print off, complete and
attach it to the assignment)
Electronic submission:
You are required to just submit your ‘Word’ group assignment electronically (i.e.
just item 3 above) using the assignment ‘dropbox’ facility on blackboard according
to the new Faculty Policy. You should clearly indicate the names of each of the
three (to four) group members on your group assignment. You will also be required
to give a name to your submitted file and we request that you name it as your three
surnames in alphabetically order (for example, “ChanJonesSmith.doc”). Obviously
you will not be able to have any penned notations on your electronic submission

5
 and so, for example, no signatures are required on the electronic version of your
assignment.

Plagiarism: The Faculty’s plagiarism policy will be strictly enforced (see UOS Outline).
Evidence of plagiarism (depending on its extent) can seriously affect marks
awarded even if content is of high standard. To avoid this possibility you should
cite sources used in your group’s assignment. Follow the referencing guidelines in
Appendix 5, pp. 23-31 of the Writing in the Discipline of Accounting document
available on Blackboard. Note that citation is required both in the main body of the
assignment (‘in-text referencing’) and in a reference list/bibliography at the end of
the assignment.
SafeAssignment is a function available to you in Blackboard to assist with correctly
referencing your project. It’s a useful function that provides you with feedback on
the references you have put into your project report. The way it works is as
follows:
- you upload a draft of your project via the SafeAssignment function in Blackboard
at least 24 hours before the project deadline
- over the next 24 hours SafeAssignment performs a search throughout the Web on
all of the phrases you have used
- at the end of this period, you go back into SafeAssignment, click ‘OK’ to view the
results and a report will be waiting for you. This report will tell you every
phrase and sentence in your paper that matches with published material on the
web. You can then assess whether you have correctly cited your sources.
You can access the SafeAssignment function by clicking on “Assessment” and then
clicking on “View/Complete” under the “Quick SA” title. From here, you will be
able to upload a draft of your project report. Please note that it is only a draft of
your report that you use and we will not be viewing any of the reports that are
uploaded there.

Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet and Marking Guide

The Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet and Group Research Assignment
grade descriptors follow. The Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet
indicates how the assignment will be marked.

ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE

Group research assignment grade descriptors

Developing: is intended to describe performance that is not yet at the basic level of
expectations. Features may be present but not enough to pass (below 50).

6
Functional: is intended to describe learning attainment that meets the basic
requirements and can be carried out in part without support, as there is a high degree
of reliance on authority for guidance in decisions making and little translation or
integration of concepts. It would correspond to a pass mark (between 50 and 64).

Proficient: is a desirable standard for most students to reach and strongly exhibits
independence, translation, integration, and application. It would correspond to a credit
(between 65 and 74).

Advanced: is performance beyond core expectations that is highly independent,

creative, critically reflective, generative, and transformative. It would correspond to a
distinction or high distinction (between 75 and 100).

7
Attributes Developing (<50) Functional (50-64)
1. Knowledge Limited understanding of Encyclopaedic knowledge and
& required concepts and can reproduce accurately
understanding knowledge. Inaccurate required facts and definitions.
(30 marks) reproduction of text and Has adequate breadth, but
lectures. Cannot discuss limited depth of understanding
concepts in own words of basic concepts
2. Reasoning Personal and anecdotal Rule based and descriptive,
and analysis derived largely from authority
(30 marks) (texts, lecturers, authority
figures). Mostly ‘black and
white’ thinking. Limited
capacity to identify the
complex factors within a larger
idea or context. Little
interpretation or translation.
Proficient (65-74)
Exhibits breadth and depth of
understanding concepts in the
knowledge domain. Can use
terminology accurately in new
contexts and has transformed the
ideas so that they can express
them appropriately in their own
words. Demonstrates an
appreciation of the limits of their
own understanding.
Can recognise competing
explanations and can identify the
relative merits and limitations of
an argument or position. Can
describe and defend their view
or position. Can break large
ideas, situations or problems
down into components and
explain each using the
theoretical ideas and concepts of
the discipline.
Advanced (>75)
Exhibits accurate and
elaborated breadth and depth
of understanding of concepts
in the knowledge domain.
Knows how particular facts
came to be. Demonstrates an
appreciation of the limitations
and temporary nature of
conceptual knowledge in the
field. Can generate and justify
principles, and hypotheses.
Use principles to formulate a
position or an argument. Can
articulate the limited nature of
their argument and can
challenge to boundaries of
disciplinary understanding.
Analysis is sophisticated with
a balance of theory and
personal reflection.
8
Attributes Developing (<50)
3. Information Uses immediately available
literacy information with little
(10 marks) discrimination. Cannot
independently seek out and
locate required information.
4. Use of Absence or inaccurate use of
academic referencing and citation
conventions conventions. The submission
(10 marks) checklist is not attached or
incomplete and/or supporting
documents missing.
5. Writing skills Does not demonstrate an
and presentation understanding of what is
grammar expected in presentation of
(10 marks) learning products. E.g. fails to
use spell checker, some
sentences fail to have verbs,
poorly punctuated, written in
note form, and paragraphs
have one sentence.
6. Cohesiveness The assignment is not
(10 marks) integrated. Different parts of
the assignment have no
relationship to each other.
Functional (50-64)
Can seek out and locate required
information with minimal
support. Does not always
discriminate effectively between
sources of information.
Basic referencing and use of a
reference list. Sometimes lacks
consistency, but nevertheless is a
reasonable acknowledgement of
the sources of information. The
submission checklist is attached
with one or two errors/omissions
and/or supporting documents
missing.
Adheres to most basic
expectations regarding the
formatting and presentation of
work. E.g. titles name on work,
introduction, conclusion, and
reference list. Have correct
sections for the study. Spell
checked and grammatically
correct.
The assignment follows a
structure but different parts of the
assignment bear little relationship
to each other.
Proficient (65-74)
Can independently seek out and
locate required information. Is
selective, effectively discriminating
between source of information.
Use of academic conventions such
as referencing and citation is
accurate, consistent and appropriate
for the field of study.
The submission checklist is
attached with no omissions and
supporting documents attached but
with one error/omission.
Adheres to all expectations and
conventions with all expected
attributes present. Some translation
and interpretation of the
conventions to suit personal style
and the specific execution of the
task.
The assignment has a structure and
different parts of the assignment
have a moderate relationship to
each other.
Advanced (>75)
Independently seeks out and
locates required information. Is
selective and discriminates
between sources of
information.
Use of academic conventions
such as referencing and
citations is accurate, consistent
and appropriate for the field of
study. The submission
checklist plus supporting
documents are attached and are
accurate and complete.
All expectations and
conventions with all expected
attributes present but have
been creatively interpreted to
suit personal style and specific
execution of the task. A unique
but appropriate presentation of
work.
The assignment is well-
structured and different parts
of the assignment have a high
relationship to each other.
9
ACCT 3011 (Semester 2, 2009) Group Research Assignment– Feedback
sheet

CONTENT (60 MARKS)

1. Knowledge and understanding (30 marks)

Comments:

2. Reasoning and analysis (30 marks)

Comments:

WRITTEN EXPRESSION AND PRESENTATION (40 MARKS)

3. Information literacy (10 marks)

Comments:

4. Use of academic conventions (10 marks)

Comments:

5. Writing skills and presentation, grammar (10 marks)

Comments:

6. Cohesiveness (10 marks)

Comments:

Total (out of 100):

Less ‘other’ deductions:
Final total (out of 100):

Any other remarks?

10
 ACCT 3011 Financial Accounting B, Semester 2, 2009

Group Research Assignment – Submission checklist

Submission list Tick

here
1. Faculty Group Assessment Coversheet (containing academic
honesty declaration)

2. Paper copy of group assignment

3. Electronic copy of group assignment (no signatures are

required for this)
4. The Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet (ready to be
completed by markers)

Instructions
1. The Faculty’s Group Assessment Coversheet is to be attached
to the paper copy of your assignment and is available from:
http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/content.php?pageid=2138

2. Retain a copy of the assignment for your own records

3. The Group Research Assignment Feedback Sheet (ready to be

completed by markers) is to be attached to the paper copy and
is available at p.10 of this document)

4. Please attach this Submission Checklist to your paper copy of

the assignment

11